Friday, June 11, 2010

Secure Flight started rolling out in 2009 and I'm happy to announce that TSA is now performing 100% of the watchlist matching for domestic flights. (Airlines used to conduct all of the passenger watchlist matching)

What is watchlist matching? It's when a passenger is prescreened using their name, date of birth and gender (that should match the information on their approved official government ID) against government watchlists for domestic and international flights. Actual names on the list are identified by the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center as being people who may pose a known or suspected threat to aviation.

Secure Flight will help prevent the misidentification of passengers who have names similar to actual people on the government watchlists and will allow more than 99% of travelers to print their boarding passes from home or kiosks and avoid undergoing additional screening because of a mismatch. Passengers who feel they have been misidentified should visit the DHS TRIP program Webpage to file a complaint.

We've been blogging about Secure Flight for quite some time now and we've compiled answers to some of the most common questions we've received in the two blog posts below.

When are you going to address the article in Nature that exposed the pseudoscientific foundations of the ridiculous, Orwellian, and massively wasteful SPOT program that you've boasted about in the past? Do you think that we're just going to forget about it?

Translation: The government, thru TSA, now must be asked permission for American citizens to travel by air.

Didn't we, as a nation, make fun of places like the USSR, Eastern Bloc, and other communist/authoritarian countries for being backward and not giving their people the travel without asking permission? And didn't we think that such a thing would never happen here?

Guess the USSR was on to something, eh? And all spun with propaganda to make it sound like a great and wonderful thing!

Bob so what about this report out if the us virgin islands about the tsa employee that is charged with jury tampering and has drug convictions in his past. Is this just "another isolated incident" that "doesn't reflect on the rest of tsa"

this isn't a isolated incident this becoming regular occurance in the news.

So now that TSA says they are doing "100% watchlist matching" for domestic flights, does that mean the TSA PR machine will quit deflecting blame when innocent passengers are delayed and harassed due to the blacklists and when the redress system proves to continue to be useless and ineffective?

Just curious. You can't have it both ways. So it's beyond time to quit blaming the airlines and innocent passengers for their problems.

BTW, has 8-year-old Mikey Hicks had his problem resolved and received an apology from TSA?

Blogger Bob said: Secure Flight will help prevent the misidentification of passengers who have names similar to actual people on the government watchlists.

Please provide an example. If my name is Osama, Saddam, Jihad, or any other "Similar" Terrorist name will I be selected for additional screening? What happens if I share the gender, DOB & a similar name w/ a real terrorist? Will TSA subject me to additional screening?

Forget the erosion of civil liberties for a moment. Secure Flight makes us less secure.

1. It forces every airline passenger to provide more identification information to the airlines, which means they are at much greater risk from crimes like identity theft/credit fraud.

2. The privacy policies associated with Secure Flight do not seem to apply any rules to what the airlines can do with the additional information you provide. Even if they don't intentionally misuse your information, the design of the system still requires your personal information to be transmitted at least twice and stored in at least two places, creating many more opportunities for data leaks.

3. Secure Flight makes it easy for terrorists to test to see if they are on a watch list and therefore subject to more scrutiny without any risk. For the cost of a few cheap tickets, they can discover which of their agents are not on the lists--often without even visiting the airport--and then design their plans accordingly.

4. The whole idea of pre-screening creates a window of vulnerability, both in time and in the two-IDs and two-boarding passes switcheroo.

If you buy the premise that it's a good idea to check passengers against a secret list of people who are dangerous and yet not-arrestable, you wouldn't do it this way. It's too complicated to work well, and all that complexity creates new dangers.

Instead, you'd put a terminal at the entrance of every checkpoint. It would have a barcode reader and a magstripe reader that could read nearly every type of government-issued ID. It would also have a keyboard for the tiny fraction of non-machine-readable IDs. The TSA officer who normally checks your ID would also swipe it through the terminal, and it would tell him/her whether the passenger is on a list.

The passenger's information doesn't need to be transmitted or stored anywhere. Airline tickets and boarding passes could be anonymous. This eliminates the possible data leaks and logging concerns.

Terrorists wouldn't get advance warning about their status. They'd have to nervously stand in front of a government agent, surrounded by impatient passengers, giving the Behavior Detection Officers a chance to see their guilt-broadcasting microtwitches (if you believe in that baloney).

If the terminals are updated constantly with changes to the lists, then you close the window of vulnerability in time. And since there's no compare-the-boarding-pass-to-the-ID step, you eliminate the switcheroo hack.

And, as a bonus, the security line would be faster, as there's actually less for the ID-checker to do.

And all this would cost less than a couple WBI machines. In fact, it would probably cost less than the infrastructure TSA built to administer the data rention and deletion policies for the existing Secure Flight scheme. It reduces the burden on the airlines, which might help them make a profit, and it restores the ticket resale market, which drives down ticket prices.

Secure Flight is so badly designed for its stated goals, one can conclude that either its actual goals are different than its stated goals or that its designers are utterly incompetent.

the names also come from the United States Marshal's Service Warrant Information Network. I assume that's not actually a watch list of terrorists, but a list of people with outstanding warrants. This is really about turning the airport security checkpoint into a dragnet.

But of course, we don't *really* know who's on the list and who isn't because it's secret. The criteria for getting a name on or off the list is secret. (Unless you're Nobel Peace Prize winner Nelson Mandela who managed to get off the list by an act of Congress.)

We've had several posts about how TSA has pruned the size of the list, but no posts have acknowledged that it has once again *doubled* in length.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/10/national/main6286899.shtml

We don't know how well access to the list is controlled. The above articles suggest that there are some problems in this regard. At least one TSA person been indicted for tampering with the database. Ultimately who gets on or off the list is in the hands of about six TSA employees. Can I get the name of my political enemy on the list by bribing just one or two people? Quite possibly.

I'm fundamentally against this Minority Report style pre-crime nonsense. I can't find anything in the Constitution that says the government can restrict the rights of a set of people whose names match those on a secret list--people who aren't even suspicious enough to arrest and charge with a crime. If you make it hard to get on a plane with a viable weapon, then you don't really have to worry about who's on that plane. We can all be treated equally by the government.

Imagine if Mr. Sizzlypants had been turned back at the airport checkpoint. He would walk away and try to find another way to attack. Instead, he's in custody providing information. And nobody got hurt (except Mr. Sizzlypants himself). That, my friends, is what success looks like.

So Bob, does this mean I no longer have to use a variation of my full name and still be able to check in on-line? I mean if the airline now has my Secure Flight details they should be able to recognize I'm not the Ted Kennedy they are looking form.

This does not have to do with Secure Flight -- it does have to do with traveling without harassment.

I happened to be in New Orleans International Airport (MSY)last Saturday. By Concourse C, there were large signs announcing that liquids in containers could not be larger than three ounces. Not 3.4 ounces / 100 milliliters. THREE ounces. The announcement over the loudspeaker repeatedly announced "No more than three ounces."

Wasn't this supposed to be corrected on all web pages and in all airports?

Geez, I'd think that if one of the most highly respected scientific journals in the world published a scathing critique of one of the cornerstones of an organization's approach that the organization in question might want to, oh, I don't know, maybe respond to those allegations at some point.

If you are so confident in the efficacy of the SPOT program, you must have at least some information that you would like to share, no? Oh, silly me, I must have forgotten that any information that is at all relevant to the actual ability of the TSA to perform the task that it has been assigned is a highly guarded secret, known only to tens of thousands of entry level employees who meet TSA's rather low hiring standards.

Kat said…“I happened to be in New Orleans International Airport (MSY)last Saturday. By Concourse C, there were large signs announcing that liquids in containers could not be larger than three ounces. Not 3.4 ounces / 100 milliliters. THREE ounces. The announcement over the loudspeaker repeatedly announced "No more than three ounces."

Wasn't this supposed to be corrected on all web pages and in all airports?”

Signage will not be changed. Effective 2/25/09, only future references on the blog, web content, and the contact center’s response will reflect 3.4 oz.

Adrian said... “the names also come from the United States Marshal's Service Warrant Information Network. I assume that's not actually a watch list of terrorists, but a list of people with outstanding warrants. This is really about turning the airport security checkpoint into a dragnet.”

The No Fly and Selectee Lists are based on all the records in the TSDB and the No Fly and Selectee Lists represent the subset of names who meet the criteria of the No Fly and Selectee designations. However, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission and as required under the IRTPA, TSA may use ‘‘the larger set of watch lists maintained by the Federal government’’ when warranted by security considerations. For example, TSA may learn that flights on a particular route may be subject to increased security risk. Under this circumstance, TSA may decide to compare passenger information on some or all of the flights on that route against the full TSDB or other government databases, such as intelligence or law enforcement databases. Thus, TSA defines ‘‘watch list’’ for purposes of the Secure Flight program as the No Fly and Selectee List components of the Terrorist Screening Database maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center. For certain flights, the ‘‘watch list’’ may include the larger set of watch lists maintained by the Federal government as warranted by security considerations.49 CFR Parts 1540, 1544, and 1560 Secure Flight Program; Final Rule

Adrian said... “Ultimately who gets on or off the list is in the hands of about six TSA employees. Can I get the name of my political enemy on the list by bribing just one or two people? Quite possibly.”

TSC makes the final decision on whether a person meets the minimum requirements for inclusion into TSDB as a known or suspected terrorist and which screening systems will receive the information about that known or suspected terrorist. It is not uncommon for a nomination to have multiple recommendations throughout the watchlisting process. In the end, however, TSC works with NCTC and the originators to ensure a nomination is exported to as many screening systems as the nomination information supports.Timothy J. Healy Statement before the House Judiciary Committee March 24, 2010

I´m going to continue to bring this up, because it is preposterous for the TSA to completely ignore it:

Nature, the leading scientific journal in the World, published an extensive article questioning the Science behind the SPOT program. The article is quite detailed and specific to the US SPOT program. That same program that costs US$ 200 million a year.

How can you justify the continuation of such a program under these circumstances?

Do you really think that by completely ignoring this article, the problem will simply go away? Sorry to tell you, but I´m not budging on this point.

Don´t you think that, at the very least, your organization should have prepared some kind of answer to the journal itself?

I agree with you. This really is about less harassment. I'm pretty sure that about half of these comments are from the same angry guy as well. haha

I think that this policy is going to be helpful to be honest. Heck if anyone was scared to travel because they felt that they would be mistakenly identified as someone on "the list", they don't have to worry as much.

As far as where the list came from and who decides who is on the list, that's a completely different story. It's probably not within the jurisdiction of the TSA anyway.

TSO C4 said...Blogger Bob said: Secure Flight will help prevent the misidentification of passengers who have names similar to actual people on the government watchlists.

Please provide an example. If my name is Osama, Saddam, Jihad, or any other "Similar" Terrorist name will I be selected for additional screening? What happens if I share the gender, DOB & a similar name w/ a real terrorist? Will TSA subject me to additional screening?

June 12, 2010 11:29 AM..............What does the name matter if the person is properly screened for WEI?

I am going to a textile workshop and I am supposed to bring scissors.Since there is a fee to check bags I am trying to get everything I need in a carry-on. I need clarification on the regulations for bringing scissors in a carry-on. Are all scissors less than 4 in ok to carry or only those without pointed ends? Or can I carry any scissors as long as they don't have pointy ends? Many crafters want to have sewing needles and scissors with them to work on things during the flight. I see explainations for knitting & needlepoint, what about crochet?

Bob are the images that TSA post outside of WBI screeners actual images showing the same degree of detail and resolution as seen by TSA employees or has TSA effectively lied to the public by posting images that have been manipulated so they do not raise the concerns of people about to be Strip Searched?

I am a "Trusted Traveler" with a Nexus card. Yet I STILL had to tolerate a hands-on pat down administered by TSA agents AT THE GATE who pounced on me like they had been waiting for me for hours. The feeling of having another human being "pat down" my pubic bone without probable cause is is invasive, pointless, and a violation of my civil rights.

No, I would not let you take a naked image of me to avoid this, either.

It does not make anyone safer to grope a person who is no threat.

I paid to have background checks conducted before hand to prove that I am no threat to anyone. Yet I still have to be "patted down"?

What is even more ridiculous is that the pat down was done very perfunctorily and would not have detected a concealed weapon (I am law enforcement trained). So I really was groped for no reason at all. It is obvious that TSOs are going through the motions without putting much thought into who or what they are searching.

I truly hope the natural disasters and oil spills calm down so that the Obama Administration can turn its eye on TSA and correct these inexcuseable violations of Americans' civil rights.

Adrian said in part....Instead, you'd put a terminal at the entrance of every checkpoint. It would have a barcode reader and a magstripe reader that could read nearly every type of government-issued ID. It would also have a keyboard for the tiny fraction of non-machine-readable IDs. The TSA officer who normally checks your ID would also swipe it through the terminal, and it would tell him/her whether the passenger is on a list.***********************************As a TSO, I have to agree with this statement in particular. Give us the ability to scan the barcode on the back of Government issued identification, and let the database tell us whether or not you are on the list. Also, we need to give travelers a means of redress in case someone comes up on the list who should not be on the list. In other words, vet the list more thoroughly so that the average Joe or Jane can travel freely, while the person with harmful intent is either denied access, arrested, or screened thoroughly. This will also strengthen our TDC procedures, and bring us up to speed technologically.TSA has a severely bad reputation, and part of it is because of a lack of information to the public, we CAN correct that without divulging Sensitive information. Thanks for your input Adrian.

I happened to be in New Orleans International Airport (MSY)last Saturday. By Concourse C, there were large signs announcing that liquids in containers could not be larger than three ounces. Not 3.4 ounces / 100 milliliters. THREE ounces. The announcement over the loudspeaker repeatedly announced "No more than three ounces."

Wasn't this supposed to be corrected on all web pages and in all airports?

The signs at MSY looked new.__________________________________Its a sad life when you have nothing better to worry about!

Anonymous said... I happened to be in New Orleans International Airport (MSY)last Saturday. By Concourse C, there were large signs announcing that liquids in containers could not be larger than three ounces. Not 3.4 ounces / 100 milliliters. THREE ounces. The announcement over the loudspeaker repeatedly announced "No more than three ounces."

Wasn't this supposed to be corrected on all web pages and in all airports?

The signs at MSY looked new.__________________________________Its a sad life when you have nothing better to worry about!

June 22, 2010 8:04 AM

...........What is more sad is a federal agency that intentionally places signage in airports that is incorrect.

I will refuse to go through a full body scanner, nor will allow my children to go through it. It is a huge cumulative health risk, and it is degrading. And, the leading radiation experts warn against this technology.

I am a "Trusted Traveler" with a Nexus card. Yet I STILL had to tolerate a hands-on pat down administered by TSA agents AT THE GATE... Welcome to the new America. It isn't just TSA, DHS but all government TLA's (Three Letter Acronyms) that have no respect for nor sense of responsibility to the citizens of this country. It's a national disgrace.

Kat said: Wasn't this [3.4 ounces / 100 ml] supposed to be corrected on all web pages and in all airports?”

Tim said: Signage will not be changed. Effective 2/25/09, only future references on the blog, web content, and the contact center’s response will reflect 3.4 oz.

Then, Tim, what do I do when I arrive at the airport with the 100 ml containers (which containers I purchased at significant expense from Canada since only 2 ounce and 4 ounce containers are available in the US) of safe food, and the TSO on duty points to these incorrect signs and tells me I have to throw my food out because it is more than three ounces?

Kat said: Wasn't this [3.4 ounces / 100 ml vs 3 ounces] supposed to be corrected on all web pages and in all airports?

The signs at MSY looked new.__________________________________Anonymous said: Its a sad life when you have nothing better to worry about!

A.N. Onymous,

I'm one of many thousands of Americans with severe food allergies. I must carry my own safe food when I travel. There is nothing safe for me to eat which I can purchase in the secure area of any airport because it's all processed junk food with a million hyper-allergenic additives.

I have plenty to worry about when I travel. Not the least of which is whether or not an improperly trained TSO using inaccurate information will put me in the hospital because he or she has stolen my safe food.

RB said in part:What is more sad is a federal agency that intentionally places signage in airports that is incorrect.

June 22, 2010 11:01 AM***********************************I have to agree with RB on this one, management truly needs to update the signs in our airports, and inform airports of the correct requirements, because the rule of 3.0 has long since been updated to 3.4....how can TSA management expect TSOs to enforce 3.4 when the signs and the airport PA systems specificially state 3.0? It is critical that this gets corrected as it will not only make the public more informed, it will make MY job a little bit easier.

"Ultimately, the final decision is in the hands of about six experts from the Transportation Security Administration."http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/10/national/main6286899.shtml

It was misleading to attribute that comment to me rather than to the source I was quoting.

And your response was missing the point. The comments you quoted from Timothy J. Healy in what I assume is an attempt to refute the statement I quoted are talking about something else. Healy was explaining how names get in at the front of the pipeline. The CBS article is talking about how there are only about six people involved at the end of the pipeline.

Ultimately, the people at the end of the pipeline decide which names get on and who don't.

And one of those TSA employees at the end of the pipeline was indicted for attempting to tamper with the database.

I see that the Good Gear Guide article has been revised since I posted. Before it made a specific claim that names on the No-Fly and Selectee lists came from TIDE *and* the Marshals Warrant Service. The revised version points out that the indicted employee was charged with attempted tampering with both the TSA lists and the Marshals list. Why would a TSA employee have access to the Marshals Warrant Information Network?

"Geez, I'd think that if one of the most highly respected scientific journals in the world published a scathing critique of one of the cornerstones of an organization's approach that the organization in question might want to, oh, I don't know, maybe respond to those allegations at some point.

If you are so confident in the efficacy of the SPOT program, you must have at least some information that you would like to share, no? Oh, silly me, I must have forgotten that any information that is at all relevant to the actual ability of the TSA to perform the task that it has been assigned is a highly guarded secret, known only to tens of thousands of entry level employees who meet TSA's rather low hiring standards."

Beyond the SPOT failure:Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.), the Republican leader of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, today released a government report which highlights failures at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to improve the security of the nation’s transportation systems.

Mica, from Florida’s 7th House district, said, “This is another example of our critical security agency, TSA, being lost and rudderless.”...

...Mica continued, “TSA has learned nothing from their problem-plagued aviation security programs. In fact, it seems quite clear that TSA is repeating many of the mistakes made in the aviation sector, including mediocre risk assessments, inadequate workforce planning, weak training for workers, poor coordination with stakeholders, and scant follow-up assessments of its intermodal security programs and technology deployments.”...

...“This report is further proof that this is an agency in need of complete reform. If the President’s latest nominee to lead the TSA is confirmed, I will urge him to immediately reevaluate and reorganize this enormous, costly, and unwieldy bureaucracy of over 60,000 employees. In this top-heavy agency, 30 percent of its Washington headquarters workforce is comprised of supervisors and the average headquarters salary is over $105,000.”...

I wonder if private companies could be more effective. Didn't many Federal websites get pulled down/injunctions issued after they launched them in early 2000's? Never heard of banks having problems like that.

By the way my CAPTCHA is Terann..I realize that's not exactly Iran's capital, but its closer than any other word I know.

Q: Any word on the apparent Secure-Flight requirement that anyone who books their ticket within 72-hours of travel or changes their itinerary within 72 hours of travel (say due to a flight cancellation, weather delay, reroute, etc.) will be subject to HaraSSSSment via SSSSelectee SSSScreening?

A: Facilitating passenger air travel is a key goal of the Secure Flight program. To achieve that goal, Secure Flight was designed to be able to perform real-time watch list matching for passengers who are standing by or who have last minute flight changes.

The "answer" doesn't address the question. The question was whether a last minute booking or itinerary change would lead to being SSSSelected. The "answer" talks about real time watch list matching, but says nothing about whether or not last minute bookings or changes would lead to SSSSelection.

Sounds like a pretty straightforward question to me, that should have a straightforward answer. It's ironic that when the TSA poses the question the answer doesn't address the question.

TSA removes things from your bags and does not return them. On Saturday, June 19. 2010, a TSA agent went through my nicely presses clothes and removed the item that they wanted, a watch. When I got my bag you would have been ever suprised at how that ramsacked my bag and no watch. It was returned today with an apology.

Congratulations, TSA! Not only is there no evidence that Secure Flight will reduce any "mismatch issues", it's apparently caused a six-year old girl to appear on the list! The more you tell us that "There are no children on the list", the more I'm sure you're not telling us the truth.

WESTLAKE, Ohio - Alyssa Thomas, 6, is a little girl who is already under the spotlight of the federal government. Her family recently discovered that Alyssa is on the "no fly" list maintained by U.S. Homeland Security......

"She's been flying since she was two-months old, so that has not been an issue," said Alyssa's dad. "In fact, we had traveled to Mexico in February and there were no issues at that time."

....According to the Transportation Security Administration, Alyssa never had any problems before because the Secure Flight Program just began in June for all domestic flights. A spokesperson will only say, "the watch lists are an important layer of security to prevent individuals with known or suspected ties to terrorism from flying."

"When they were done clearing a four year old for explosive materials, they turned their attention to me. I was taken through the normal pat down procedure to which I am accustomed. I was then informed, in a matter of fact tone, that the rules have changed as of today (Friday, May 28, 2010) and that further screening was necessary."

"I was instructed to remove my leg. I refused, stating that it was against procedure to insist that I remove my prosthetic. Another man was brought over, who lectured me about the increased security risk and the need to keep screening procedures current. He reiterated that the rules have changed, and that he needed my prosthetic."

It's nice to see that the program is working so well -- it's stopping terrorists before they even know they are terrorists!

Like little Alyssa Thomas (age 6) who never had any trouble flying. Until "Secure Flight" that is. From the article I will link to below:

"According to the Transportation Security Administration, Alyssa never had any problems before because the Secure Flight Program just began in June for all domestic flights. A spokesperson will only say, "the watch lists are an important layer of security to prevent individuals with known or suspected ties to terrorism from flying."

Bob says: "Secure Flight will help prevent the misidentification of passengers who have names similar to actual people on the government watchlists and will allow more than 99% of travelers to print their boarding passes from home or kiosks and avoid undergoing additional screening because of a mismatch."

Oh, and that DHS TRIP program Bob was telling us about? Again, from the article: "Alyssa just received a letter from the government, notifying the six-year-old that nothing will be changed and they won't confirm nor deny any information they have about her or someone else with the same name."

I look forward to seeing Bob and his fellow bloggers spin their "there's no children on the list" mantra. And their "Secure Flight will help prevent misidentification" mantra.

So then, this six year old girl will be... off the list? Or what? Because that's not what the TSA is saying in her case, off this blog: http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/ohio-6-year-oid-alyssa-thomas-turns-up-on-terror-watch-list/19532082?icid=main|aim|dl1|link1|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fnation%2Farticle%2Fohio-6-year-oid-alyssa-thomas-turns-up-on-terror-watch-list%2F19532082

Here's an idea, lets get rid of all airport security and hire wallmart greeters to stand there and wave and smile at passengers as they walk past them where the security checkpoints used to be. They will not look for guns or knives or bombs or anything else that can ruin your day. Then the travelling public will be MUCH safer...

I thought I knew exactly what I wanted to say here, then I read the first 4 anonymous comments. It reestablished what I was planning on commenting. Now, I am not going to comment at all until I read the article in NATURE. If anyone has a link (is that allowed here?) or the title or date of the article, PLEASE LET ME HAVE THE INFORMATION! So appreciated.

I do welcome your efforts to provide more passenger safety, but I can't help to think that there must be a healthy balance between safety and civil rights. Basically what this means is that we need to have a permission from the government to travel, doesn't it? Citizens should be allowed to move freely.

Tsa please stop making my airline trips a hassle. im going to Michigan in a week and not flying simply because i disagree with your methods and practices that hassle me the paying consumer. hopefully one day my born in USA 14 year old son will come off the watch list.

Anonymous said... Here's an idea, lets get rid of all airport security and hire wallmart greeters to stand there and wave and smile at passengers as they walk past them where the security checkpoints used to be. They will not look for guns or knives or bombs or anything else that can ruin your day. Then the travelling public will be MUCH safer...

June 27, 2010 1:03 PM***********************************Excellent idea anon! Then when something terrible happens, all the cry babys on this blog will wonder why there wasn't security at the airport, but at least your civil liberties will be in tact as your plane comes tumbling out of the sky.

Anonymous wrote "Excellent idea anon! Then when something terrible happens, all the cry babys on this blog will wonder why there wasn't security at the airport, but at least your civil liberties will be in tact as your plane comes tumbling out of the sky."

Anonymous said... Here's an idea, lets get rid of all airport security and hire wallmart greeters to stand there and wave and smile at passengers as they walk past them where the security checkpoints used to be. They will not look for guns or knives or bombs or anything else that can ruin your day. Then the travelling public will be MUCH safer...

June 27, 2010 1:03 PM *********************************** Excellent idea anon! Then when something terrible happens, all the cry babys on this blog will wonder why there wasn't security at the airport, but at least your civil liberties will be in tact as your plane comes tumbling out of the sky.

June 29, 2010 5:25 PM-------------------------------

Yeah but at least i will die a FREE AMERICAN!

By the way.......How many terrorists has TSA caught at checkpoints since it's inception......oh right ZERO!!!!!!!! And the Times square bomber was on the no fly list and allowed to board a plane.....nice failure.

Here's an idea, lets get rid of all airport security and hire wallmart greeters to stand there and wave and smile at passengers as they walk past them where the security checkpoints used to be. They will not look for guns or knives or bombs or anything else that can ruin your day. Then the travelling public will be MUCH safer...

-------

Do we have to play the "it's either the TSA or zero security" game? It's a silly argument that makes no sense.

Why can't I just have the same security that existed on 9/10/01? It worked just as well as TSA security (and, for the millionth time, to head off the response: 9/11 was not a failure of airport security, and there isn't a single thing that TSA has done in the almost 9 years since its inception that would've prevented 9/11 from happening).

Adrian said...“It was misleading to attribute that comment to me rather than to the source I was quoting.”

I have no idea what you were quoting in your first post as your link was nonfunctional, and you did not use quotes in your first post (Netiquette). Now that I can see what you are quoting, I have googled the article that you have referred to, and I have read it.The article can be found here, if anyone is interested.

The process isn’t just six TSA employees saying who is placed on the list and who is not. That is very misleading. Please read Timothy J. Healy’s congressional testimony on the subject and your article (four steps). The analyst does not go home, grab a name from his most hated list, and place it on the no-fly or selectee list. To imply this is misleading, and is a logical leap (fallacy).

Adrian said...“And your response was missing the point.”

I agree. Not from a lack of trying. On a side note, I am not going to comment on Douglas Duchak as that case is ongoing.

anon said in part...Why can't I just have the same security that existed on 9/10/01? It worked just as well as TSA security (and, for the millionth time, to head off the response: 9/11 was not a failure of airport security, and there isn't a single thing that TSA has done in the almost 9 years since its inception that would've prevented 9/11 from happening).***********************************Interesting point anon, but if you viewed the airport tapes from 9/11/01 (they are on youtube), you would see clearly that at least two of the terrorists were improperly screened, and hand held metal detector alarms went UNRESOLVED....so how can you claim there was no failure on the part of airport security? Oh the boxcutters? They were legal right? Yeah that is correct...and the playdough and wires and batteries that were used to "fake" a bomb on flight 93, also legal. Procedures were lax, and passengers were just as lax, that is what caused 9/11 anon....could it happen again? Sure, no security program is without flaws, but the regulations that exist today, are tighter than they were on September 10, 2001 and these guys would likely stand out like sore thumbs in today's checkpoint, Vs the checkpoints that existed back then. Go back? I don't think we need to go back, we need to find a way to go forward with smart security procedures that work, and that's what I'm hoping we will be seeing as our new administrator gets into the position and takes a hard look at what we see on the checkpoints everyday.

I agree that we need smart screening. Problem is, we've gone 8 years without it and TSA shows every indication of continuing the trend of stupid screening.

Nothing TSA is doing now would have prevented 9/11 from happening. If anything, what we've seen since TSA has come along is that it's only the terrorists own stupidity that is keeping them from harming aviation.

Sure, blame it on foreign airports. But guess where the screening standards come from that those foreign airports come from: TSA. Without meeting TSA standards, those flights aren't permitted to enter the US.

You can bag on the private screeners from way back when all you want. The fact of the matter is that you guys are no better 8 years later, and many of those people were hired into TSA. The one thing we DID get was about a 90% cost savings with those guys than TSA. And planes didn't fall out of the sky then. Was it perfect, of course not. But screening was reasonable, and that same screening would be reasonable now.

Bob keeps alluding to intel saying some things are a threat, but it seems more like hocus pocus and gut feelings when you look at other places in the world still having safe aviation without employing TSA's stupidity. Afterall, 3.4 oz won't bring down a plane, but 4 oz will. Unless you're Britney.

It's sad that after 8 years, and the government promising professional ("You can't professionalize until you federalize!") and effective security that we have neither.

More accurate intelligence information on who the real terrorists are and where their located can go a long way to make security better.Get more intelligence officers out there to follow the enemy and neutralize the threat before terrorists have a chance to strike.

Al, I will not disagree with you entirely on the points you make....could our current screening protocols have prevented 9/11? I don't know, and nobody ever will know....but going forward with "smart procedures" is what needs to happen, it can be achieved, so let's see what our new admin has in mind.

June 29, 2010 4:02 PM***********************************Yes you can Jeff. Safety razors are easy to travel with, however if you have an old fashioned razor that opens up so that the blade can be removed, or if you have one of the old shick injector razors, it would be best to get your blades on the destination end of your flight.

Why are kids names coming up on the no fly list? Are they capable of a crime? I thing this is where the government gets to far into the obscene... And why delete coments. Are you trying to keep the truth from being heard? Many people are unhappy with the services the TSA provides. Work on your policies or work on the kinds of people you bring to the force.Just my ideas on how to right the wrongs.

June 29, 2010 4:02 PM***********************************Yes you can Jeff. Safety razors are easy to travel with, however if you have an old fashioned razor that opens up so that the blade can be removed, or if you have one of the old shick injector razors, it would be best to get your blades on the destination end of your flight.

July 1, 2010 8:14 PM

Not trying to be argumentative but exactly what does "it would be best to get your blades on the destination end of your flight" mean?

Would an injector type razor and blades be confiscated? Or would one of the old fashioned razors and blades be confiscated?

Hey Bob, can you explained to me why TSA is so incompetent? I submitted my documents to TRIP three months ago and still haven't received a confirmation that they've been received. The ill-treatment that one receives at the hands of the TSA is more likely to create new terrorists than stop any. You people are genuine idiots.

Not trying to be argumentative but exactly what does "it would be best to get your blades on the destination end of your flight" mean?

Would an injector type razor and blades be confiscated? Or would one of the old fashioned razors and blades be confiscated?

Just trying to be clear on what it is your telling us.***********************************Good question, and here is the answer: If you were to travel with an injector type razor and blades, the blades would be considered prohibited through the checkpoint, but permitted in checked baggage, same thing with old fasion type razor and blades. The razor itself without the blades is permitted, the blades are not permitted through checkpoint, but can be transported in checked baggage. So, if a bag search is called on one of these types of razors, and blades are found, they would either need to be surrendered or placed in checked baggage. Alternative, buy the blades when you get to your destination.